HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1079 of 2022 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. Heard. Present contempt proceedings has been instituted for alleged non- compliance of the judgment and order dated 07.1.2022 passed in P.I.L. No. 22357 of 2020 whereby this Court has directed the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector to conclude the pending proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, the Code, 2006) preferably within a period of three months and to take effective steps for removal of unauthorized encroachment from the Gaon Sabha land. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that a compliance affidavit has been filed on 10.04.2025 mentioning therein that the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 in 18 cases have been decided and concluded and the removal of unauthorized encroachment could not be made due to pendency of appeals against the orders passed in the cases under Section 67 of Code, 2006. On the other hand learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the writ petition was not filed for deciding the proceedings pending under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 rather, it was filed to remove the unauthorized encroachment from the Gaon sabha land, which has not been removed till date. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Indrajeet, Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ram Sumer .....Applicant(s) Shri Abhinav Pathak, Tehsildar/Asst. Collector .....Opposite Party(s) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the submission made on behalf of the applicant is contrary to the record available and misleading. The Writ Petition was filed for issuing a direction to the respondent no. 3 to conclude the initial proceedings of Section 67 (3) of Code, 2006, which is evident, as the prayer of writ petition is quoted in the judgment and order of which disobedience is being alleged. The direction passed by the Writ Court is to conclude the proceedings pending under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 preferably within a period of three months, which have been concluded. Learned Counsel for the applicant is unable to dispute the same, whereas for removal of unauthorized encroachment, no period prescribed therein and as stated in the compliance affidavit, unauthorized encroachment could not be removed due to pendency of appeals under Section 67 (5) of the Code, 2006 against the orders passed under Section 67 of the Code, 2006, which is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, no case for committing the contempt is made out hence, the present contempt application is dismissed. November 7, 2025 Ashish CAPL No. 1079 of 2022 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench